resulting damage

• What is the principle of factual causation in negligence law?

  The principle of factual causation establishes whether the defendant's breach directly caused the claimant's harm, typically using the "but for" test. This means asking whether the harm would have occurred 'but for' the defendant's actions. For example, it ensures consistency by treating all claimants the same way. However, it may be unfair in cases with multiple defendants or causes, as it can prevent claimants from proving which defendant was responsible.
• How is the but for test applied in cases like barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital ?

  This test asks whether the harm would have occurred if the defendant had not breached their duty. In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital, a patient died of arsenic poisoning, but the hospital was not liable because the harm would have occurred regardless of their breach. This shows how the test helps determine if the defendant's breach was a factual cause of the harm
• Give an example of how the courts sometimes ignore the but-for test for policy reasons.

  In cases like Chester v Afshar, courts may prioritize policy considerations over strict adherence to the "but for" test. Lord Hope ruled that the injury was legally caused by the doctor's failure to warn of a risk, even though the surgery was competently performed. The decision ensured that doctors fulfill their duty to warn patients, prioritizing patient rights and trust in medical professionals.
• How do material contribution and material increase of risk tests provide justice in negligence cases?

  These tests are used when causation cannot be directly proven due to multiple causes. In Fairchild v Glenhaven, the claimant was exposed to asbestos by several employers. The court held all employers liable as their actions materially increased the risk of harm. This ensures fairness for claimants, although it can be seen as unfair to defendants who may not have been directly responsible.
• what happens when an intervening event breaks the chain of causation?

  The defendant is not liable if the intervening event is deemed substantial enough, as in Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government.
• When might a claimant's actions not break the chain of causation ?

  If their actions are deemed reasonable, as in Spencer v Wincanton Holdings, where the claimant’s further injuries were still attributed to the defendant’s negligence.
• Why can the remoteness of damage test be unfair to the claimant?

  if the type of damage is not reasonably foreseeable, the claimant fails, as in Doughty v Turner Asbestos, where knowledge at the time couldn’t predict the explosion.
• In the context of learners, specifically learner drivers in the case of nettleship v Weston, it is fair that they are judged against experienced people in the field because the learner will have insurance and they are only required to do what is reasonable in the situation.